Public record
Software health reportschema 0.34.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-10-08 21:52 UTC

vllm-project / speculators

A unified library for building, evaluating, and storing speculative decoding algorithms for LLM inference in vLLM

PythonApache-2.0★ 865 stars⑂ 247 forkssince Apr 2025View on GitHub ↗
KindCommand-line toolLibraryhow this is determined

vllm-project/speculators holds a health index of 94 out of 100, placing it in the Exceptional band. It scores highest on Vitality (99/100) and lowest on Security (40/100). It was last updated today. 4 contributors account for most of its recent work.

94
overall / 100
Exceptional

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

94
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 80 is calibrated to 94 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

vLLMOrganization
4,317 followers50 public repossince Jun 2023

This repository is backed by an organization — shared, accountable stewardship that can outlive any single maintainer.

Package ecosystems

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

99Exceptional · 21% of overall
How it's scored
36/36Push recency — last push 0 days ago
35.3/36Commit cadence — 51/52 weeks with commits
18/18Commit volume — 578 commits in the last year
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — no data
Inputs used
commits_last_year578
human_commit_share0.9
days_since_last_push0
active_weeks_last_year51

Release discipline

100Exceptional
How it's scored
27/27Ships releases — 13 releases published
36/36Release recency — latest release 0 days ago
27/27Release cadence — a release every ~24.2 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count13
latest_release_tagv0.6.0.2
releases_from_tagsno
days_since_latest_release0
mean_days_between_releases24.2

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

77Good · 17% of overall
How it's scored
47.6/60Stars — 865 stars
19.9/25Forks — 247 forks
5.8/15Watchers — 12 watchers
Inputs used
forks247
stars865
watchers12
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

92Excellent
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (Apache-2.0)
18/18CONTRIBUTING guide
13.5/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
6.3/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges4
has_contributingyes
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductyes
readme_badge_servicesshields.io
has_pull_request_templateyes
How it's scored
50.2/80Monthly downloads — 5,844 downloads/month across pypi
0/20Registry dependents — not reported by this ecosystem
Inputs used
packagesspeculators
dependents—
ecosystemspypi
total_downloads—
monthly_downloads5,844
unverified_packages_excludedhs-connectors
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Registry dependents. Remaining weights renormalized.

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

82Excellent · 23% of overall
How it's scored
43.2/54Bus factor — 4 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
17.2/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 24% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 71 contributors
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — no data
Inputs used
bus_factor4
contributors_sampled71
top_contributor_share0.236
How it's scored
31.4/42Issue resolution — 75% of issues closed
23.1/30PR acceptance — 682/886 decided PRs merged
9.5/13Newcomer PR acceptance — 8/11 first-time contributors' PRs merged in 30d
0/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — no data
Inputs used
merged_prs682
open_issues53
closed_issues157
prs_merged_7d10
prs_decided_7d13
prs_merged_30d37
prs_decided_30d49
issue_closed_ratio0.748
closed_unmerged_prs204
first_time_authors_30d6
first_time_prs_merged_30d8
first_time_prs_decided_30d11
How it's scored
30/30Ownership backing — organization-owned
0/20Verified domain
25/25Owner reach — 4,317 followers of vllm-project
19/25Track record — 50 public repos, account ~3 yr old
Inputs used
followers4,317
owner_typeOrganization
is_verifiedno
owner_loginvllm-project
public_repos50
account_age_days1,208

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 2 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 35 days ago
20/20Version history — 22 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesspeculators, hs-connectors
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish35

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

91Excellent · 19% of overall
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 3 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
9.6/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
0/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — no data
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configyes

Documentation

90Excellent
How it's scored
30/30README
25/25Documentation directory
15/15Documentation / homepage site — https://docs.vllm.ai/projects/speculators
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 1 topics
0/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicsspeculative-decoding
has_wikino
homepagehttps://docs.vllm.ai/projects/speculators
docs_sitehttps://docs.vllm.ai/projects/speculators
has_readmeyes
has_docs_diryes
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

40Weak · 16% of overall
How it's scored
0/30Security policy (SECURITY.md)
25/25Dependabot config
0/25Dependency lockfiles
0/20CodeQL workflow
Inputs used
sourcefile_signals
lockfiles—
manifestshs_connectors/pyproject.toml, hs_connectors/setup.py, pyproject.toml, setup.py
has_codeql_workflowno
has_security_policyno
has_dependabot_configyes

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages91
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:speculators@0.8.0 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 91 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

88Excellent · 4% of overall
How it's scored
45/45Agent instructions — AGENTS.md
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
40/40Legible commit history — 90 of 90 human commits state their intent (structured subject or explanatory body)
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share1
agent_instruction_filesAGENTS.md
agent_instruction_max_bytes1,552
How it's scored
18/18One-command bootstrap — Makefile, hs_connectors/Makefile
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — pyproject.toml ([tool.ruff])
11/11Static type checking — hs_connectors/src/hs_connectors/py.typed, src/speculators/py.typed
0/10Reproducible environment
10/10Demonstrated agent practice — 18 of the last 100 commits agent-authored or agent-credited
8/8Automated maintenance — 10 of the last 100 commits are automated dependency updates
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — no data
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfiles—
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_filesMakefile, hs_connectors/Makefile
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configshs_connectors/src/hs_connectors/py.typed, src/speculators/py.typed
agent_commit_share0.18
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share0.1
How it's scored
27/45Type-checkable code — Python with type-check config (hs_connectors/src/hs_connectors/py.typed, src/speculators/py.typed)
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/260 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes40,332
source_files_sampled260
oversized_source_files0
How it's scored
0/40API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto) — not applicable to this kind of software
0/20MCP server — not applicable to this kind of software
40/40Runnable examples — examples
Inputs used
example_dirsexamples
has_mcp_signalno
api_schema_files—
interfaces_expected_of—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): API schema (OpenAPI/GraphQL/proto), MCP server. Remaining weights renormalized.

Key facts

865GitHub stars
71contributors
578commits, last 12 months
0days since last push
13releases
4bus factor
53open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

Data collection warnings

  • Star history unavailable: GitHub GraphQL error: Resource not accessible by personal access token
  • First-time contributor figures cover 12 of 20 authors (cap 12)
  • OpenSSF Scorecard did not return a usable result (killed by SIGKILL — most likely the container's memory limit); skipping Scorecard checks

More detail

Star and fork history 0 ★ / 247 ⇿
0Stars
247Forks
11Releases

When each star and fork was added, collected from GitHub and bucketed by day. Cumulative growth sits directly above the daily additions it is made of, so the two read against each other: steady organic accretion looks nothing like an abrupt, short-lived burst. Where that difference is measurable, it is reported as growth authenticity.

05010015020025024282025-072026-022026-10
Major 0Minor 8Patch 0

Each point covers 2 days.

Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIsafetensors—hs_connectors/pyproject.toml
PyPItorch>=2.6hs_connectors/pyproject.toml
All dependencies 46

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 1 direct and 45 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPItorch—direct
PyPIbuild—indirect
PyPIguidellm—indirect
PyPImarkdown—indirect
PyPImatplotlib—indirect
PyPImdformat—indirect
PyPImdformat-admon—indirect
PyPImdformat-footnote—indirect
PyPImdformat-frontmatter—indirect
PyPImdformat-gfm—indirect
PyPImdformat-gfm-alerts—indirect
PyPImike—indirect
PyPImkdocs—indirect
PyPImkdocs-api-autonav—indirect
PyPImkdocs-awesome-nav—indirect
PyPImkdocs-gen-files—indirect
PyPImkdocs-linkcheck—indirect
PyPImkdocs-material—indirect
PyPImkdocs-minify-plugin—indirect
PyPImkdocs-nav-weight—indirect
PyPImkdocs-redirects—indirect
PyPImkdocs-section-index—indirect
PyPImkdocstrings-python—indirect
PyPImooncake-transfer-engine—indirect
PyPImooncake-transfer-engine-cuda13—indirect
PyPImypy—indirect
PyPInumpy—indirect
PyPIpre-commit—indirect
PyPIpygments—indirect
PyPIpymdown-extensions—indirect
PyPIpytest—indirect
PyPIpytest-asyncio—indirect
PyPIpytest-cov—indirect
PyPIpytest-mock—indirect
PyPIpytest-rerunfailures—indirect
PyPIruff—indirect
PyPIscikit-learn—indirect
PyPIscipy—indirect
PyPIsetuptools—indirect
PyPIsetuptools-git-versioning—indirect
PyPIspeculators—indirect
PyPIsphinx—indirect
PyPItypes-click—indirect
PyPItypes-pyyaml—indirect
PyPItypes-requests—indirect
PyPIvllm—indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:speculators@0.8.0 pulls in 91 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.34.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.